High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Others on 28 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Others on 28 August, 2009
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                           Civil Writ Petition No.15848 of 2008
                                  Date of Decision: August 28, 2009


Rakesh Kumar
                                                    .....PETITIONER(S)

                               VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                   .....RESPONDENT(S)
                           .     .      .


CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -        Ms. Anu Chatrath, Advocate, for
                  the petitioner.

Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, for the
respondents.

                           .     .      .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

                  The   prayer       made     in    this   petition

under   Article     226/227       of    the    Constitution        of

India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari, quashing the action of the

respondents in not considering the claim of the

petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Geography)

against an advertisement issued in October, 2006.

It has been asserted that the petitioner is

higher in merit.

The facts of the case need not be

gone into in view of the fact that a statement
CWP No.15848 of 2008 [2]

has been made on behalf of the respondents to the

effect that vide Order dated 27.8.2009, the

petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer

(Geography) in the service of the State.

In view of the above, the main

grievance of the petitioner having been

addressed, no cause of action survives for

adjudication.

The petition is disposed of as

having been rendered infructuous.

Copy of Letter dated 27.8.2009 is

retained on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner

asserts the right to claim benefits in view of

the fact that the persons who are lower in merit,

had joined earlier. Under the circumstances, the

petitioner would be entitled to seniority and pay

fixation accordingly.

The petitioner would be at liberty

to file a representation before the respondents.



                                                        (AJAI LAMBA)
August 28, 2009                                           JUDGE
avin



1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?